Questions Often Asked About the Case Against Clinton

WASHINGTON â€”  Some frequently asked questions about Paula Corbin Jones and her lawsuit against President Clinton:

Question: Who is Paula Corbin Jones?

Answer: Now living in Southern California, Jones was a 24-year-old Arkansas state employee at the time that she says then-Gov. Bill Clinton sexually harassed her in May 1991.

*

Q. What does she say occurred?

A. Jones says that during a state convention at Little Rock’s Excelsior Hotel, a state trooper asked her to accompany him to Clinton’s suite so the governor could meet her. Once there, she says, the governor took her alone into a bedroom, dropped his trousers and asked her for oral sex. She says that she refused and that Clinton advised her to keep quiet about the incident.

*

Q. Why did she wait three years before filing her lawsuit?

A. Jones has said that she was embarrassed and humiliated by her experience and had no intention of going public. But in early 1994, the American Spectator, a magazine, quoted an Arkansas state trooper as identifying a woman named Paula as one of Clinton’s “girlfriends.� Jones said that she decided to take action to clear her name when word of her identity spread and that she only filed suit when it became apparent Clinton would not apologize.

*

Q. How can she prove what happened in a room where she was alone with Clinton?

A. She has circumstantial evidence only. State Trooper Danny Ferguson says that he remembers taking a woman named Paula to the governor’s suite at the Excelsior but does not know what happened subsequently. Two associates of Jones remember her being distraught when she returned to a state booth where she was working downstairs. They have signed affidavits that she related her story to them at the time and that they believed her then and still do. Jones also says that she can identify “distinguishing characteristics� of Clinton’s genital area.

*

Q. What evidence undercuts her claim?

A. Critics have pointed to the fact that she waited three years before seeking redress for her alleged grievance and the fact that her first press conference had a partisan tinge. She announced her lawsuit at a convention of political conservatives. In addition, critics of Jones note that she never claimed she was physically harmed or lost her state job. Ferguson says that he saw Jones afterward and she did not seem distraught.

*

Q. What will happen next?

A. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case but only decided that it may proceed. So the matter will be sent back to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Arkansas, where Clinton’s attorneys will ask that it be dismissed on grounds that it lacks merit. The judge is not expected to grant such a motion.

*

Q. What strategy will Jones’ lawyers follow?

A. To shore up the circumstantial case, they will attempt to prove that Clinton as governor engaged in a “pattern of conduct� with other women that would lend credence to Jones’ claims. They intend to question several state troopers under oath, perhaps associates of Jones or other women in Little Rock and to subpoena confidential state police records in hopes of finding references to questionable conduct by Clinton.

*

Q. Can this lawsuit be settled out of court?

A. The Supreme Court ruling gives added incentive for a White House-directed settlement to avoid potentially embarrassing disclosures. Jones has said that she wants to get back her good name and would be glad to settle. She may insist, however, that the president acknowledge some questionable action on his part, which likely would be a sticking point because Clinton’s lawyers have said that the alleged incident never occurred.

*

Q. Who is financing Jones’ lawsuit?

A. A legal defense fund has run dry, depleted by expenses, according to her lawyers. They insist, however, that money is not an issue. Her suit seeks $700,000 in damages but her lawyers say that Jones has turned down the same sum to appear on television to dramatize her claim, proving that she is not a “gold-digger� as some of her critics have charged.